By FITSNews || It happens every year …
Well-intended legislation that aims to reform South Carolina’s anti-competitive legal climate gets watered down in the State Senate, usually thanks to a handful of wealthy trail lawyer-legislators who reap hundreds of thousands of dollars each year based on the failed status quo. As a result, South Carolina small businesses are forced to pay higher premiums – on top of all the other costs they have to pick up as a result of this state’s bureaucratic incompetence.
Earlier this session, a reasonably strong tort reform bill was passed overwhelmingly by the S.C. House (a victory for which we give rare pro-business props to Speaker Bobby Harrell, Majority Leader Kenny Bingham and Minority Leader Harry Ott). Unfortunately, trial lawyers in the Senate – led by Sen. Luke Rankin (RINO/DIC – Horry County) – first stalled the legislation, and have now succeeded in watering it down to the point that small business and civil justice advocates are threatening to pull their support for the bill.
Calling the current version of tort reform “unacceptable,” S.C. Civil Justice Coalition director Cam Crawford sent a letter to State Senators this week urging them to revisit several key points of the legislation.
To give you one example the annual “sticking points” related to this bill, let’s consider the admissibility of seat belt evidence in South Carolina – or rather the lack thereof. Currently, if you go flying through a car window because you failed to wear your seat belt and decide to sue people as a result of your injuries, jurors are not permitted to know whether or not you were buckled up at the time of the accident.
That’s ridiculous.
Obviously, we will always support an individual’s right NOT to wear his or her seat belt, if they so choose. However, to be over-compensated for injuries suffered in a crash is just insane – and another example of how our current system is rigged to provide big lawyer payouts.
There are numerous other pro-trial lawyer provisions that have been weaseled into this legislation, all of them designed to keep the dollars flowing into the pockets of lawyer-legislators like Rankin, Democratic Sen. Brad Hutto and others.
On the other side of this fight, conservative Senators like Tom Davis and Lee Bright have been working hard to craft a compromise, but it is our belief that the time has come for them to walk away from the negotiating table. After all, you can’t negotiate with terrorists – and economically-speaking that’s exactly what Rankin and Hutto have become on this issue, holding real reform hostage in an effort to pad their own wallets.
This is needed legislation that has been corrupted, and Senators are now faced with the choice of either fixing it or passing yet another example of “Reform in Name Only.”
Assuming this version of tort reform reaches the Senate floor, we’re going to get a pretty clear look at which Republicans stand for small businesses and which ones stand with the trial lawyer lobby.
By Jobs Bill for Trial Lawyers May 4, 2010 at 11:27 am
When the House passed tort reform it was because they wanted to help create jobs for our state.
Well, these senators are creating jobs alright – more jobs for trial lawyers.
By Just Say No to TV Lawyers May 4, 2010 at 11:32 am
This is just another reason that the South Carolina General Assembly should JUST SAY NO TO TV LAWYERS!
By Freudian Slip? May 4, 2010 at 11:33 am
Argentina-trail lawyers?
By Small Businessman May 4, 2010 at 11:38 am
When are our elected officials going to start looking out for the small business owners in this state?
We create the majority of the jobs and no one in government seems to get this fact(or care).
Please pass tort reform and protect those who create jobs.
By Checking in May 4, 2010 at 11:57 am
If you go flying through your windshield and the jury can’t come to a reasonable conclusion that they weren’t wearing a seat belt without it having to be admitted, then blame the education system, because you are a moron. Of course, when asked about admissibility of driving records and causation of the accident, Mr. Crawford’s group bristles….why is that? That’s relevant too right?
By Help May 4, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Giving business the unfettered right to place people in danger is not the answer to bringing jobs to South Carolina. Either regulate businesses sufficiently or give someone hurt by business negligence the ability to be compensated but don’t take away both. Businesses use a bottom-line analysis in every major decision they make. If they have notice that they have placed a dangerous product in the stream of commerce and a bottom-line analysis suggests that it would be less costly to just leave the product on the market and defend the lawsuits, then there is a serious problem with the tort law. We need to bring business to SC and we need to legislate in their best interest but it isn’t fair to make them above the law. No one is above the law.
By Not so Much May 4, 2010 at 12:58 pm
The public might want to read up on this issue – From Good Hands to Boxing Gloves: The Dark Side of Insurance by David J. Berardinelli would be a good start. The problem with litigation in South Carolina is not with claimants in 95 percent of the cases – it is with the insurance companies and defense attorneys. Insurance companies don’t want to pay fair settlements, forcing people to either accept pennies on the dollar or to reluctantly hire attorneys to get something approaching a fair resolution of their problem, and defense attorneys who bill by the hour who have no motivation to do anything but drag cases out to the bitter end.
By A Real Small Business Man May 4, 2010 at 1:02 pm
This is not a small business issue; tort reform is a total red herring. The Tort reform proposed would have absolutely no impact on anything small businesses pay for. Just like the tort reform we did for the Doctors. It reduced payments to injured parties, and the number of injured people who sue, but no corresponding reduction in malpractice insurance premiums. This is an insurance lobbyist bill. Saying this benefits small business is a joke. It hurts small business by reducing what damages they can ask for when screwed by big business without a corresponding cost savings.
Further, SC tort system is not anti-competitive. Jury verdicts here are well below the national average. We are not a big verdict state.
By kyle May 4, 2010 at 1:10 pm
what is funny is will is running ads from the trial lawyers right now.
By Need more businessmen in the legislature May 4, 2010 at 1:11 pm
This proves that we need more businessmen and less lawyers in the SC Legislature.
By fitsnews May 4, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Kyle,
We’re actually running ads from both groups.
-FITS
By Richard H. Bond, DMD May 4, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Does this really surprise anyone? The fact that Sen. Luke Rankin (RINO/DIC – Horry County) would protect his own interest while passing the bill (buck) to small businesses and small business owners. This is his “modus operandi.” Why haven’t we heard Sen. Rankin’s response to the recent arrest of local magistrate Brad Mayers who he appointed to step down? Because it is in his own interest. We need less “Lawyer-Legislators” for better representation in our State Legislature.
By Not so Much May 4, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Yes, of course, to make changes to the legal system, you should have more people in the legislature who do not understand the legal system. And likewise, you should have cab drivers making decisions as to who can get a license to build homes, and you should have hairdressers regulating morticians. Let’s put the people who know the least about a subject totally in charge of that subject. Heaven forbid that lawyers should be involved in changes to the judicial system or the laws.
By you make me sick May 4, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Not So Much & Real Small BusinessMan -
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU – for speaking the truth when Will writes this kind of one sided garbage. and THANK GOD everyone understands (hopefully) that this is a blog, not a news site in any semblance of the word.
and by the way – prove to us “oh wise one” how exactly tort reform will lower insurance premiums. You think the insurance companies want to take a pay cut any more than lawyers do? or take a walk around the statehouse & do a headcount of trial lawyer lobbyist versus insurance lobbyists. or google it, moron!! hasn’t happened yet in ANY OTHER STATE!!!!!!!!!!!!
everyone hates a lawyer til it’s YOUR mother, daughter, wife, best friend who gets thrown through that windshield. then we’ll see who’s calling a “TV LAWYER” for help.
By Recovering Lobbyist May 4, 2010 at 3:24 pm
A Real Business Man: I see the Small Business Chamber of Commerce (aka the Trial Lawyers Association) has weighed in.
By poster May 4, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Jurors are stupid. They are just ordinary folks who get to here both sides of the story and make a decision. But because they are common folk They must be idiots and cant make a right decision. How can we prevent our fellow citizens making bad decisions….Government.
Government can help them. Government needs to move in and make sure these citizens know how much they can give! Government is the answer to everything. More Government interference is needed especially in the judicial system where politics are suppose to be kept out!
Glad FITS believes in the concept of Government telling us what is right and what is wrong..
By misstate May 4, 2010 at 3:41 pm
you folks don’t even know what tort reform is
are you cool with a cap when your wife/husband/daughter/son get killed by negligent truck driver, ups driver (insert your defendant)
what’s enough? 250k? 300K?
Surgeon cuts off wrong leg? 100k cap?
Seriously, what should the cap be?
How about loss of an eye? 50K? is that enough?
By Howard Bond May 4, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Small business owners are people too! In 1996 – 1997 then democrat Sen. Luke Rankin, supported the so-called “hospitality tax” of 3% and gained support by touting it’s “sun set clause.” 501 still congested. Inflation is on the rise. Will the “sun set” on the tax after they finish the hwy 31 to hwy 701 connector? What are the traffic counts on these fine roads?
By Checking in May 4, 2010 at 5:59 pm
I thought that name Bond sounded familiar.
Are you the same R. Howard Bond one that ran against Luke Rankin in the Republican primary in 2008? The one that got 322 votes to his 6,002? The one where he got 68% of the vote in a 3 way primary? That’s a mandate my friend. Although you have the right to free speech, it appears even after his vote on 96-97, they still support him. Sour grapes I think
By CNSYD May 4, 2010 at 6:08 pm
I was all for tort reform until you said Tom Davis was working on it. Now I am very wary of it.
By Watching from afar May 4, 2010 at 6:17 pm
You seem to forget who also supports all those evil trial lawyers: Defense Lawyers who would have no choice but to become evil trial lawyers themselves, except the evil insurance companies hire them to defend their innocent clients against evil trial lawyers.
Evil trial lawyers usually lose if they insist on going to a jury; and Defense Lawyers get their fees win or lose!
By You make me FITS May 5, 2010 at 1:23 am
Real Small business may, I am glad someone realizes these bills only (a) injur S.C. Citizens and cooporations – by lessening payouts for real injuries and (b) help insurance companies by NOT AFFECTING THE DAMN PREMIUMS…insurance companies laugh all the way to the bank about these bills once they pass and continue to raise the preiums up just as high and fast even though payouts are limited for clear violations and breaches of duties owed. Did the our medical tort reform anymore doctor’s here???
By Need For MORE businessmen?????? May 5, 2010 at 9:13 am
Need for more businessmen: Why don’t you do a little thing we lawyers like to call fact-checking. It is a novel concept for people who contribute to this website. Did you know that it is a myth that the SC Legislature is run by lawyers? Did you know that there are more insurance agents than lawyers in the SC Legislature?????
Will, why don’t you post a breakdown of the members of the legislature by profession so everyone, including me, can know what we are talking about? I CHALLENGE YOU!
By Need For MORE businessmen?????? May 5, 2010 at 9:17 am
Oh…and Lee Bright and Shane Martin?
They might have the combined IQ of a secretary at my law firm. See, lawyers have to actually be educated on the lawmaking process and how laws work. Funny little thing called a “JD” that lawyers have to go to school for three years beyond a Bachelor’s Degree to obtain.
Bright and Martin? My guess based on their actions is that their experience with lawmaking dates to watching that School House Rock video back in 3rd grade.
By misstate May 5, 2010 at 12:08 pm
and for someone who hates lawyers so much, will sure has no problem retaining one when his butt is in a sling
By Just want some fairness May 5, 2010 at 2:09 pm
I couldn’t really care less about the rest of it, but it defies logic to me that failure to wear a seatbelt is inadmissible in a negligence suit over a traffic accident. For instance, if I accidently change lanes into my blind spot and don’t see you, causing an accident in which you are thrown out of your car because you purposefully chose not to wear your seat belt, my accidental violation of a statute can be considered evidence of negligence per se and the jury is charged so by the court. Howver, your intentional violation of a statute is not admissible at all, much less not negligence per se, even to show that your damages would have been less but for your decision to violate the law. Note that the burden or proof regarding the lessening of the damages would be on the defendant, so it’s not like this is a slam dunk just by having it be admissible.
Standard jury charges tell the jury that drivers have the right to assume other drivers will follow the law. Why is there an exception in this instance?
None of those arguing against this part of the bill have given any rational reason for their stance. Someone needs to put them on the spot about it.
By patricia May 5, 2010 at 2:45 pm
“combined IQ of a secretary at my law firm”
I work at a law firm and most legal secretaries are quite bright. They keep this fact to themselves since most attorneys can’t stand anyone who can understand the law without a JD.